Silvia Victoria Ortega Bautista; v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVIA VICTORIA ORTEGA
BAUTISTA; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 23-366
Agency Nos.
A215-815-035
A215-815-036
A215-815-037
A215-815-038
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Silvia Victoria Ortega Bautista and her three minor children, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 22 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 23-366
denying their applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection
under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings.
Conde Quevedo v. Barr, 947 F.3d 1238, 1241 (9th Cir. 2020). We deny the
petition for review.
We do not disturb the agency’s determination that petitioners failed to
establish they suffered harm that rises to the level of persecution. See
See Nagoulko v. INS, 333 F.3d 1012, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2003) (discrimination and
harassment did not rise to the level of persecution); see also Flores Molina v.
Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 633 n.2 (9th Cir. 2022) (court need not resolve whether de
novo or substantial evidence review applies, where result would be the same under
either standard). Substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that
petitioners failed to establish a reasonable possibility of future persecution. See
Nagoulko, 333 F.3d at 1018 (possibility of future persecution “too speculative”).
Because petitioners failed to establish eligibility for asylum, they failed to satisfy
the standard for withholding of removal. See Villegas Sanchez v. Garland, 990
F.3d 1173, 1183 (9th Cir. 2021). Thus, petitioners’ asylum and withholding of
removal claims fail.
Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT protection
because petitioners failed to show it is more likely than not they will be tortured by

-- 2 of 3 --

3 23-366
or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See
Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the mandate issues.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --